Tag: Shut Up Slave

How the Political Machinery Works

For the last three days there have been hearings at the Minnesota State Capitol building on the recently proposed gun control bills. So far gun rights advocates have greatly outnumber gun control advocates, which could make it seem as though gun rights advocates have a chance at shutting these bills down before they hit the floor. In an ideal world that would be the case but in the real world that’s not how things work. When you’re working within the political system you’re playing by the state’s rules, of which there is only one: the state gets to make the rules. Yesterday it became obvious that the hearings were nothing more than a sham, as hearing usually are. Gun control advocates were given disproportionately more time to speak and the author of the bill that was being discussed walked out when gun rights advocates were speaking.

It’s obvious that the people proposing this slew of bills have already made up their minds and that no amount of reasoning is going to dissuade them. Nobody should be surprised by this though, this is how statism works and why the political process is not an effective means of protecting your property.

Comments Regarding Obama’s Visit to Minneapolis

Mr. Obama visited Minneapolis on Monday to promote his scheme to disarm us serfs. The event was predictable as the video shows Obama standing at the podium giving his speech while members of Minnesota’s largest gang stand behind him in solidarity. Several highlights form the story merit some mention:

“You’ve shown that progress is possible,” Obama told an invited, sympathetic crowd at the Minneapolis Police Department’s Special Operations Center in north Minneapolis, where he highlighted the city’s success in reducing youth gun violence. In his first visit outside Washington, D.C., to promote his own anti-violence and gun-control agenda, Obama said the nation can make similar progress — if the public demands it.

By progress Obama means disarming the serfs. I would say that a majority of non-state gun control advocates truly believe they are working to prevent violence but the state supports gun control for an entirely different reason. The state, which can be considered the nobility, wants the serfs disarmed because disarmed individuals are easier to expropriate from. You can only take so much from the serfs until they have to make a decision between dying of starvation or disobeying the law. Once the serfs get to that point they inevitably decide to disobey the law and that usually leads to the nobility being booted out of power (sadly they are usually replaced with a new nobility). If the serfs are disarmed the time it takes them to reach the point of disobeying the law is increased as the cost of booting the current nobility out of power is greatly increased. This delay allows the nobility to kick the can down the street and, they hope, enrich themselves by expropriating fromt he serfs while making their successors deal with the consequences.

Obama was correct, Minneapolis has made progress. Unfortunately for us serfs that progress his detrimental to our health.

“The only way we can reduce gun violence in this country is if the American people decide it’s important,” Obama said. “We’re not going to wait until the next Newtown, or the next Aurora,” he added, referring to the massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut and the gunman who shot up a theater full of moviegoers in Colorado.

Actually there is another, far more effective, way to reduce gun violence in the United States; end the war on drugs. The state’s war on drugs that haven’t been approved by the Food and Drug Administration has caused a major increase in violent crime (just as Prohibition did in the 1920s). Organized crime syndicates such as the Mexican drug cartels and the United States federal government have been using violence to eliminate their competition since the war on drugs was first declared. Ending the war on drugs would reduce gun violence, likely more than any other action. Once again we return to the fact that the state doesn’t care about violence, it only wants a disarmed populace to expropriate wealth from.

Meanwhile, Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak expressed outrage at politicians who already were talking down the proposal’s chances. “Well, guess what?” Rybak said. “People are dying out there. I am not satisfied with the main sort of front from the people in Washington, that this is sort of a game. Where are the other people on this issue? Get a spine, get a backbone. People are losing their lives.”

Rybak was correct, people are dying out there, and his thugs in the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) are killing them. We return again to the increase in violence crime caused by the war on drugs. The MPD has a rather colorful history of using its capacity for violence to steal from the serfs. In neighboring St. Paul the city’s police went so far as to kill a family’s dog, handcuff the present children and throw them down next to the dead dog, and interrogate the parents in the hopes of finding some justification for raiding the wrong address. Obviously Rybak isn’t serious about reducing gun violence in Minneapolis, he just wants the MPD to have a monopoly on it.

Since Obama was present a pro-Obama shill was brought in to argue in his favor:

John Souter, the sole survivor of Minneapolis’ Accent Signage shootings last September, said of Obama: “If we don’t have the moral courage to support the president of the United States, shame on us.” Souter, an Accent employee, was in the private session with Obama.

If we don’t have the moral courage to oppose a man who orders the execute of children, shame on us.

One of the most interesting aspects of Obama’s visit is that he supposedly came to Minneapolis because of the MPD’s progress in reducing gun violence. Yet the reduction in gun violence wasn’t credited to passing draconian gun control laws, it was credited to police directly interacting with youth:

Obama’s speech, before risers filled with Twin Cities police officers and sheriff’s deputies, focused on a city effort sparked by a spike in juvenile crime a decade ago. Known as the Blueprint for Action, it involved connecting young people with mentors, intervening in kids’ lives when necessary and getting students to “unlearn the culture of violence.” A progress report showed firearms-related assault injuries among youth had fallen from 159 in 2005 to 94 in 2011.

In other words Obama wants you to support gun control because the MPD’s programs of directly intervening with Minneapolis youth has correlated with a reduction in youth gun violence. How supporting gun control and the MPD’s program of directly intervening with Minneapolis youth are connection is beyond me.

In conclusion Obama’s visit went exactly as expected. The visit served no real purpose other than demonstrating that gun control isn’t about violence, it’s about control.

Herein Lies the Reasons You can be Murder By The United States Without Due Process

The criteria Obama uses to determine who he will personally order to be assassinated has remained a mystery, until now. A memo [PDF] describing the criteria used to determine whether or not somebody will be the target of a drone launched missile has been leaked. Needless to say the justification is fairly loose:

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

[…]

“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.
Read the entire ‘white paper’ on drone strikes on Americans

Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”

In other words due process gets thrown out the window if an some state agent believes you’re somehow involved with al-Qaeda. The best part about this is that it’s legal. Think about that.

How the United States Handles Downgrades to Its Sovereign Debt Rating

What happens when a credit rating agency downgrades the United States federal government’s sovereign debt rating? The United States sues your ass:

Standard & Poor’s says it is to be sued by the US government over the credit ratings agency’s assessment of mortgage bonds before the financial crisis.

The lawsuit will not only be brought on by the United States government but will also take place in a United States court, making for an interesting conflict of interest that will go almost entirely ignored by most people. On top of that, even if the case ends up in Standard and Poor’s favor, the damage has already been done:

Shares in S&P’s owner, the US publishing and media group McGraw Hill, fell 14% on Wall Street on Monday following the announcement…

On top of that people seem to believe that Standard and Poor’s isn’t the only target of the Department of Justice’s (DoJ) wrath:

while those in fellow ratings agency Moody’s fell 10% – indicating the market expects that they may be next in the justice department’s sights.

While Moody’s didn’t downgrade the United States debt rating they did change their outlook to “negative,” which makes them another likely target of the DoJ’s wrath. Today’s lesson is that you can’t criticize the United States government without inciting its wrath.

FBI Captures Another One of Their Own Terrorists

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) is celebrating the capture of another terrorist that they created:

Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 21, was given a fake bomb by undercover agents posing as Islamist militants, lawyers said.

Mohamud was arrested after he tried to use his phone to detonate the fake car bomb near a crowded square in Portland.

This is just another in the long line of so-called terrorists that were recruited and armed by the FBI. Needless to say the FBI gets credit for creating bad situations and stopping them. My job would be much easier if I received credit for making shit up as well.

Limiting the Spectrum of Acceptable Opinions

The longer this gun control debate rages on the more I’m reminded of Noam Chomsky’s quote, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” Currently the gun control debate seems to involve three acceptable opinions: guns are the problem, violent media is the problem, or mental health is the problem. During its press conference the National Rifle Association (NRA) moved to pin blame for mass shootings on violent media and the mentally ill. John Riccitiello, the head of Electronic Arts, recently made a statement opposing the idea that violent video games lead to real violence. Advocates of gun control state that addressing the mental health issue isn’t enough. What’s interesting is that each faction seems to agree on one thing, the state needs to control something more.

Those who believe guns are the problem are advocating for stricter state control over guns and gun owners. People who believe mental illness is the problem are advocating for stricter state control over the mentally ill. The final group, those who believe violent media is the problem, are advocating for stricter state control over video games and other media. All three factions are holding a very lively debate within a very narrow spectrum. It seems that the only acceptable opinion is that the state must get involved and the only disagreement is how the state should get involved. The conversation has been controlled in such a way that no matter what the result is the state will increase its power. So thorough is this control that all three sides seem poised to attack anybody with an opinion that falls outside of the narrow spectrum. Those of us outside of the spectrum are told we’re crazy, our ideas are unworkable, and that we’re not helping.

If nothing else I believe this gun control debate has shown us how pervasive the state’s influence over our lives truly is.

Gun Control Bills Moving in Minnesota

Via the Twin Cities Gun Owners and Carry Forum Facebook page we now have a list of gun control legislation that will be moving through the Minnesota political machinery. Looking at the list it appears to be a classic throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-hope-something-sticks strategy.

HF0238 would change the penalty for permit holders carrying a firearm on school property from a misdemeanor to a felony.

HF0239 would increase the penalties for carrying on private property after being commanded to leave. As it currently sits the first such offense by a permit holder is a petty misdemeanor but would be increased to a gross misdemeanor while the second offense would be raised to a felony.

HF0240 would effectively change Minnesota’s permit system from shall issue to may issue for any person who have had past police contact by allowing Sheriffs to mandate such permit applicants get a sign off from a mental health professional. The text of this requirement reads as follows:

(b) When the applicant has had past police contacts that indicate dangerous or violent behavior, chemical dependency, serious mental illness, or a physical condition involving mental incompetence, the chief of police or sheriff, as a condition of granting the permit, may require that the applicant obtain a letter from a state licensed primary care physician or state certified mental health professional, or both, affirming that, in the person’s professional opinion, the applicant is not seriously mentally ill or chemically dependent, and does not have a physical condition involving mental incompetence such that the person would be likely to be violent or a danger to self or others. The chief of police or sheriff must take the letter under consideration but is not required to treat the letter as determinative or conclusive in the decision to issue or deny the permit. Any such requirement by the chief of police or sheriff suspends the count on the waiting period beginning at the time the requirement is determined until the required letter or letters are provided.

When I say the system would become may issue for individuals who have had past police contact I mean that certified mental health professional, by simply being unwilling to grant you a clean bill of health (it’s not hard to justify such a refusal, mental health is such a subjective thing), will have the power to decide whether or not such an applicant can obtain a permit.

HF0241 is your standard “assault weapon” ban. Effectively anything that currently requires a Minnesota permit to purchase or permit to carry to obtain would be verboten. In addition to the historical list the bill would also prohibit any firearms that meet the following criteria:

(1) semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(ii) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(iii) a folding or telescoping stock; or
(iv) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(2) semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than seven rounds of ammunition;
(3) semi-automatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
(i) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(ii) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;
(iii) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or
(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
(4) semi-automatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(ii) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(iii) a folding or telescoping stock;
(iv) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds; or
(v) an ability to accept a detachable magazine;
(5) shotgun with a revolving cylinder; or
(6) conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person. The term does not include any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective September 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

This criteria matched up with the federal ban that Feinstein introduced. Basically everything cool would be prohibited by this legislation.

HF0242 would prohibit the manufacture, transfer, and possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The most notable piece of this legislation is the lack of any grandfathering:

Sec. 3. PERSONS POSSESSING LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES ON EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT; REQUIRED ACTIONS.
Any person who, on August 1, 2013, is in possession of a large-capacity magazine has 120 days to do either of the following without being subject to prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:
(1) permanently alter the magazine so it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds;
(2) remove the large-capacity magazine from the state; or
(3) surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

In other words your options are to gimp your magazine, take it out of the state, or hand it over to the state without compensation, once again demonstrating that you don’t own property and you’re merely being allowed to use property so long as the state allows you to. So much for the Fifth Amendment (not that it ever actually protected your property anyways).

It is my guess that the politicians who introduced these bills don’t believe they can all pass. Instead I’m guessing they’re hoping at least one or two of these bills pass, which would give them new laws in their war against gun owners. Effectively the gun control advocates in the state want more leeway to kidnap and cage nonviolent gun owners. Just remember, that the standard and accepted procedure for dealing with these types of proposed prohibitions is to energetically beg your masters to be lenient. If they choose to be lenient you should thank them and bestow them with praise and gifts and if they choose not to be lenient you should roll over and accept it like a good little slave.

Obama Dismisses Envoy Tasked with Shutting Down Guantanamo Bay

Obviously Obama is taking his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center very seriously. He’s taking his promis so seriously that he’s dismissed the envoy tasked with shutting down Gitmo:

The State Department has reassigned its special envoy for closing the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in another step away from one of President Barack Obama’s first campaign promises.

Ambassador Daniel Fried is starting this week as the department’s sanctions coordinator, according to an internal notice, focusing on governments like Iran and Syria.

And no one is replacing Fried as lead diplomat to persuade countries to resettle Guantanamo inmates approved for release. Instead, those responsibilities will now transfer to the department’s legal office.

The only thing I miss about George W. Bush’s presidency is the fact that self-proclaimed Democrats were anti-war. Now that their man is in power they seem to be entirely accepting of torture, detainment without trial, and everything else they claimed to oppose during Bush’s reign.

The FDA Moving to Protect Cigarette Companies

The State and Cigarette Companies have been having clandestine romantic encounters for decades now. While The State claims to have left Cigarette Companies, who it endearingly refers to as Big Tobacco, forever they continue to setup romantic encounters in seedy motels. On the surface this behavior may seem confusing but when you look at the big picture this behavior makes a great deal of sense. The State isn’t a very faithful partner and likes to moonlight with The People as well. Unfortunately for The State, The People hate Big Tobacco and have continuously demanded that The State leave him. Fortunately for Big Tobacco, The State greatly enjoys his gifts of lobbyist money, lobbyist jobs for The State’s friends, and tax money. Because of this The State continues to protect Big Tobacco, which is why it called one of its best friends, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to stomp out some of Big Tobacco’s competition:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration plans to oversee electronic cigarettes marketed for non-therapeutic use as tobacco products after a court ruled the products can’t be regulated as drugs or medical devices.

The FDA will propose subjecting e-cigarette companies to rules that already cover the makers of regular cigarettes, such as providing the government with lists of product ingredients, the agency said today in a letter on its website.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington said in December the FDA can regulate e-cigarettes only as tobacco products if they aren’t marketed for therapeutic purposes. The ruling meant that while the agency can review new e-cigarette products before they go on sale, it can’t require manufacturers to conduct the types of animal and human studies mandated for FDA approval of drugs or medical devices.

“The government has decided not to seek further review of this decision, and FDA will comply with the jurisdictional lines established” by the ruling, Lawrence Deyton, director of the agency’s Center for Tobacco Products, and Janet Woodcock, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in today’s letter.

E-Cigarettes hasn’t been very good to The State. Unlike Big Tobacco, E-Cigarettes hasn’t showered The State in gifts of lobbyist and tax money. The State, being a vengeful bitch, has finally found a way to get back at E-Cigarettes by getting the FDA to regulate him under the same rules that regulate Big Tobacco. Big Tobacco, being extremely wealthy, doesn’t mind paying a little extra money to do business but really hates that E-Cigarettes has been taking business away by offering Big Tobacco’s customers a method of getting their nicotine fix without all the additional harmful chemicals found in Big Tobacco’s products. However E-Cigarettes, not being as wealthy as Big Tobacco, may find itself going bankrupt under these new regulations.

Once again we learn that The State is not only a whore but a whore that is protective of its lovers.

NYPD to Begin Deploying Terahertz Scanners to Detect Carried Firearms

Earlier this year New York City’s so-called “stop and frisk” policy, which involved police officers stopping random serfs and frisking them without evidence of wrongdoing, was ruled unconstitutional. Now that the ruling has had some time to sink in we can look at what has changed for those living in New York City. First a judge decided to lift the ban on “stop and frisk” making the ruling entirely irrelevant. In addition to being allowed to resume “stoping and frisking” the New York Police Department (NYPD) is also deploying terahertz scanners to detect if individuals are carrying firearms:

Get ready for scan-and-frisk.

The NYPD will soon deploy new technology allowing police to detect guns carried by criminals without using the typical pat-down procedure, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Wednesday.

The department just received a machine that reads terahertz — the natural energy emitted by people and inanimate objects — and allows police to view concealed weapons from a distance.

“If something is obstructing the flow of that radiation, for example a weapon, the device will highlight that object,” Kelly said.

A tip of the hat goes to Paul Blincow for e-mailing me this story.

I briefly discussed these scanners, and their health effects, last year. It seems that the NYPD was merely looking for an excuse, such as a court ruling against “stop and frisk,” to justify the purchase and deployment of these potential DNA shredders. Of course it’s all being done in the name of disarming the slaves safety.